Sounds like basic human morality and empathy stepping in to right some wrongs established in the Bible. Hmmm.

And what is "basic human morality" and where is its source? Some frequent posters here have long maintained that what most call "morality" is constantly in flux and that "objective" or "absolute" truth does not exist.

And terms such as "empathy" are simply euphemisms for chemical reactions in the brain. There is no moral force behind such feelings; they only exist because they have proved beneficial to the survival of the species. Likewise, there is no actual moral bAsus for pronouncing judgement upon the behavior of others. You don't blame the creatures in the Aliens franchise for doing what they have evolved to do.

As Dostoevsky pointed out, without a source for morality beyond oneself, every person becomes his or her own god.

And we see the flaw in the "everything to live for" mantra expressed by Gervais. If this mortal life is all we have and there is no judgment for one's actions, that attitude enables people to justify doing whatever it takes within one's one personal limits to achieve pleasure. If someone else gets hurt, that's their problem.

Why is it that some Christians will devote hour upon hour to studying every minute detail of every passage of the Bible, yet will glibly pluck a single quote out of a book like Brothers Karamazov and present it out of context without any critical thought? It's a very complicated and nuanced book, one part of which is the ongoing debate between the reason of Ivan and the faith of Alyosha. As you would expect from an author of Dostoevsky's caliber, he doesn't give a definitive answer -- notwithstanding Dostoevsky's deep and abiding faith.

As for the problem of "If there is no God, we can justify anything," Dostoevsky addresses that as well in Crime and Punishment. It was also addressed by Plato in the Euthyphro, and by a great many philosophers since. Ignore these deep thinkers to focus on a single sentence by a 21st century comedian at your own peril.

Since some people seem to be either too stupid or too stubborn to read anything that wasn't written thousands of years ago by superstitious Semitic tribesmen, here's a video to watch instead.

Small-minded fools should, as usual, focus on correcting any typos (real or imagined) in my post rather than thinking critically about moral philosophy.

Actually, it's a rather facile argument that leans heavily upon tropes.

Got to view it a few minutes ago during a trip to the throne. Was immediately disappointed since the chap seemed pleasant enough rather than angry and didn't refer to Prager as a "small-minded fool." That automatically made me question his bonafides as a skeptic since that sort of behavior is a prerequisite to belonging to The Club.

Anyway, various aspects of his pleasant little talk such as his curious examples of "murder," his appeal to "the conscience," and his vague references to an expanding moral arc without defining morality itself leave one with the feeling of a person struggling to have it both ways and not being very successful at either.

At least he is a pleasant fellow. Probably make a good second baseman.

Why is it that some Christians will devote hour upon hour to studying every minute detail of every passage of the Bible, yet will glibly pluck a single quote out of a book like Brothers Karamazov and present it out of context without any critical thought? It's a very complicated and nuanced book, one part of which is the ongoing debate between the reason of Ivan and the faith of Alyosha. As you would expect from an author of Dostoevsky's caliber, he doesn't give a definitive answer -- notwithstanding Dostoevsky's deep and abiding faith.

As for the problem of "If there is no God, we can justify anything," Dostoevsky addresses that as well in Crime and Punishment. It was also addressed by Plato in the Euthyphro, and by a great many philosophers since. Ignore these deep thinkers to focus on a single sentence by a 21st century comedian at your own peril.

Since some people seem to be either too stupid or too stubborn to read anything that wasn't written thousands of years ago by superstitious Semitic tribesmen, here's a video to watch instead.

Small-minded fools should, as usual, focus on correcting any typos (real or imagined) in my post rather than thinking critically about moral philosophy.

Excellent post and video Jason. Sadly, as I posted 10 days ago, people are allowing the thread to derail into the same loop over and over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hdnmickey

And to be even more specific, those kind of responses are typically in reaction the implication that all atheists are immoral, or at best, less moral than Christians due to having no Biblical basis for their morality.

Of course there is far more to it. But when the starting point is what I described above, that is the response. There have been attempts to have those larger discussions, but at least here, they have always been derailed by the all atheists (and de facto atheists) are immoral track.

As Jason's video indirectly points out, a US based on biblical morality would likely still have slavery and no equal rights for women or minorities. But hey, if that was the case, we probably would get along with our current enemies in the middle-east, so there's that. 'Merica - Home to the Christian Taliban!

Somehow I wake up in the morning as an atheist and get through my whole day without murdering anyone.

That's because deep down inside you're not an Atheist.

One time I was having a conversation with this guy outside a bar who was Irish Catholic and he told me that some of the finest people he's ever met were Native American. He then said that deep down inside they must have some type of knowledge of the lord Jesus Christ being the messiah because they are such good people. I had to end that conversation and go order a drink because I couldn't handle that type of bullshit sober.

__________________Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

And what is "basic human morality" and where is its source? Some frequent posters here have long maintained that what most call "morality" is constantly in flux and that "objective" or "absolute" truth does not exist.

And terms such as "empathy" are simply euphemisms for chemical reactions in the brain. There is no moral force behind such feelings; they only exist because they have proved beneficial to the survival of the species. Likewise, there is no actual moral bAsus for pronouncing judgement upon the behavior of others. You don't blame the creatures in the Aliens franchise for doing what they have evolved to do.

As Dostoevsky pointed out, without a source for morality beyond oneself, every person becomes his or her own god.

And we see the flaw in the "everything to live for" mantra expressed by Gervais. If this mortal life is all we have and there is no judgment for one's actions, that attitude enables people to justify doing whatever it takes within one's one personal limits to achieve pleasure. If someone else gets hurt, that's their problem.

Asking the same questions over and over again shows that you simply don't pay attention when people actually explain things. We've had this discussion many times before.

I do want to thank our resident logorrheic Christian -- he inspired me to read Karamazov. I've read other Dostoevsky and am familiar with Karamazov but I've never actually made the time to read it. So thanks, I guess.

Asking the same questions over and over again shows that you simply don't pay attention when people actually explain things. We've had this discussion many times before.

In that case, you shouldn't mind spending a little time explaining it again to the "simple-minded fools" who didn't get it the first time. Surely it wouldn't take any longer than it took to compose the post quoted.

Funny, itís usually religious groups that try to ban books and burn records.

No, it's people who want to abolish the police who protect the innocent and the military who intercede in genocides. For instance, the same military in which my father served in WWII that preserved the lives of millions and made it possible for their descendants to be alive today.

I do want to thank our resident logorrheic Christian -- he inspired me to read Karamazov. I've read other Dostoevsky and am familiar with Karamazov but I've never actually made the time to read it. So thanks, I guess.

Perhaps you could share the insights you have gleaned from your readings...maybe the specific illustrations of the superior morality demonstrated by the recurrence of the inclusion of personal insults in exchanges with those who do not share your views.

One time I was having a conversation with this guy outside a bar who was Irish Catholic and he told me that some of the finest people he's ever met were Native American. He then said that deep down inside they must have some type of knowledge of the lord Jesus Christ being the messiah because they are such good people. I had to end that conversation and go order a drink because I couldn't handle that type of bullshit sober.

What's ironic is that what you have described is essentially the same principle invoked by an all-inclusive poster here who has developed the interesting theory that "Jesus" is found in every belief system and all will find their way to Heaven through their "own personal Jesus." You could call that the Church of Depeche Mode.

So if a person worships a tree, that qualifies.

Not surprisingly, that person's views have found great favor with many atheists here.

In that case, you shouldn't mind spending a little time explaining it again to the "simple-minded fools" who didn't get it the first time. Surely it wouldn't take any longer than it took to compose the post quoted.

Yes, it would. There was a long and involved discussion about this, which you took part in.